Page:English Historical Review Volume 37.djvu/391

This page needs to be proofread.
1922
383

The Transition to the Factory System


Part II[1]

In passing to an account of Oldknow's relations with the spinner a few words on technical matters are unavoidable. The coarser and finer varieties of cotton yarn are distinguished as low and high counts respectively, the number of the count representing the number of hanks of yarn to the pound weight. For the weaving of muslins comparatively high counts both of warp and of weft are required. The great achievement of Arkwright's water-frame was that by the twist it gave to the thread it made it hard enough for warp, and warp was accordingly known as 'twist', or hard yarn. The jenny could spin only weft, but it could produce much higher counts of weft than the water-frame could of warp. The price of any count of warp was higher than that of the same count of weft, and as the count became higher the difference in price became greater.

In giving an account of his early life to Mr. Bannatyne, Crompton stated that 'soon after the invention of his machine he spun a small quantity of no. 80 to show that it was not impossible … and that for the spinning and preparation of this he got 42s. a lb.'[2] Now in Oldknow's stock-taking of 1783 there is mention of 6 lb. 57 hanks of no. 84 twist valued at 44s. per lb., and of 21 lb. 11 oz. of no. 94 twist valued at 50s. per lb., whilst the highest count of weft mentioned is no. 80 valued at 22s. As the records have not revealed at this early period any other cases of twist so fine as eighties and nineties, it seems not improbable that the small quantities in Oldknow's stock had been spun by Crompton himself. They were almost certainly spun on the mule, but they can only have been used for experimental purposes. In his calicoes, shirtings, and sheetings Oldknow did not use, in 1784, any higher counts than no. 44 in twist and no. 47 in weft; and even for muslins he did not at first get beyond no. 66 in twist and no. 86 in weft. We have what is apparently a complete

  1. I wish to add a name which was accidentally omitted from the acknowledgement, on p. 207 above, of help received in the preparation of this and the former article on this subject, that of Mr. J. Smith of Marple.
  2. Baines, History of Cotton Manufacture, p. 200.